crucial cancer test for women. curvel is cancer screening, not just mammograms. a reality check from nbc's bob bazell. also this hour, senate armed services chairman carl levin on the 9/11 terror trial. good day, i'm andrea mitchell live in washington. ben nelson is making it clear that his vote tomorrow night is to move the senate health bill to the floor for debate. he will not obstruct and it is not a vote, though, against the bill or for the bill. nbc kelly oo'donnell is live on capitol hill. we're talking procedure here, but a crucial test. >> there's so much symbolism to this, andrea. the distinction you just made is one that ben nelson wants to make clear, especially to the people back in nebraska. he wants to give harry reid and his democratic colleagues a chance to get this debate going. so many of them feel so much more strongly in fairve of this

than we think ben nelson does right now. but he did not want to stand in the way of the debate. what happens next, assuming it does go forward tomorrow, allowing nelson and others who have concerns about this bill to try to make changes that they think will make the bill better from their point of view. nelson, that's a big story today with procedure and with strategy and it is really important for the two remaining holdouts that's mary landrieu of louisiana and blanche lincoln of arkansas and she is the only one of this group of holdouts, as we're calling them, up for re-election and she'll face a tough fight as so many democrats are braced for 2010. we have not had an explicit response from either of them about what their plans are. there has been a lot of conversation today about which senators have spoken to reid and given assurances. we don't have all of that clear yet because people certainly want to hold their fire until tomorrow. but moving forward, it certainly

seems that senate democratic leadership believes they will have the 60. also with senator robert byrd, for example, who at times is not here for many votes because of his health, he's in his 90s now, his aides expect he will be here tomorrow. we don't think we'll have the kind of absence issues that could spell trouble for this. >> one other thing you were reporting, roland burris. ethics committee coming out with a reprimand and it is a big deal. you're reporting on this? >> it goes right back to when roland burris became the junior senator from illinois. a lot of controversy about his appointment from then governor rod blagojevich. the senate ethics commit fahey has been looking at this for quite a long time and focused on what did burris tell the illinois state senate that was conducting an impeachment hearing against the governor. what did he tell colleagues? well, while they didn't find any activity to rise to the level of

expelling him from the senate, that would be the most severe, they are disappointed by his conduct and this is what they call a letter offed admonishmen. they said his sworn affidavit, which was before the illinois house, was inconsistent, incomplete and misleading, those are tough words. they also said he had shifting explanations and they believe while his conversations with those members of the governor's staff at that time may not have been quid pro quo, you appoint me and i give you something, they say it was inappropriate. burris said he's glad it is over, but this was certainly a slap for roland burris. >> indeed, it is. kelly o'donnell, thank you very much. long weekend ahead of you, but we're glad that you're there for us every step of the way. thanks, kelly. also today, first it was mammograms and now new guidelines about cervical cancer screening and causing confusion and concern among women. bob bazell joins us now with details.

bob, you laid it all out yesterday. i was watching hardball last night and you made it very clear how we got to this confusing point on the mammograms. now, cervical cancer. what are the differences here in the approach and the science behind this? >> first of all, enormous differences in the two procedures. a lot of debate about the effectiveness of mammograms and how good they are at saving lives and that's behind the politics and the arguments. we should make it very clear that pap smears and pap tests for cervical cancer are one of the most effective tools for preventing cancer, cervical cancer and nobody is arguing that they shouldn't be used or that they should be used much less. the new guidelines today from the american college of obstetrics and gynecology, which just coincidently coming out in the same week as the guidelines came out about mammograms from federal agency say they should start at 21 and that after that women should have them every two years. the reason for this is not because, again, they get back to no one doubts their

effectiveness. if abnormal cells are found during a test, a woman undergoes a coalposcopy to remove a bigger piece of tissue and that could affect a young woman's future fertility. they want to cut back on the amount of that. but that's a pretty technical issue and it really isn't as emotionally charged as the mammogram issue has been. >> timing is everything. let me take you to the mammogram issue because so much anger, confusion, fear, conspiracy theories about cost cutting because of the coincidence that this is occurring while we're talking about bending the curve and the cost curve on health care. this panel, although set up by health and human services back in 1984, as i understand it, is an independent panel and they were so brain dead, i'd have to say, about the politics, that they didn't notify hhs in a timely way and didn't give them any heads up and i was reading one quote from "the new york times" today that it didn't

occur to her that there would be any connection in people's minds between the cost cutting on health care and their recommendations. how is that possible? what world is she living in? >> what world are a lot of people living in is a big question because as these recommendations came out, a lot of people told other people who were their superiors they didn't understand what all the fuss would be about and people looking at it now are shaking their heads in astonishment. but the things that are important about this obscure federal panel that we haven't heard about before is that if health care reform is to pass, this could have a critical role in deciding what gets covered and what doesn't get covered. and this issue is and what could happen in the future. what i think you're going to see is that this will not be such a secret panel from now that meetings like the fda advisory panels will be out in the open discussed well in advance so everybody knows it is coming and a strong example of why it should be that way.

>> can i ask your judgment, tell me if i'm wrong here to be even asking, but do you agree with these new guidelines with the way they've come down here on what women in their 40s should do? >> i think the guidelines are dead on arrival, like a lot of things can come out. we say that about advisory panels. there is so much, so much momentum to getting routine mammograms for women in their 40s. it's just not going to change. but the thing, andrea, this is really, really important to understand that mammograms have their place, they can be useful, but they are not like pap smears. they don't detect all cancers or most cancers. they can lead to unnecessary surgery and that's the basis of this problem. we need better methods of detecting breast cancer in women and we don't have it and getting every woman a mammogram is not the solution to the breast ca cancer problem. >> we don't need confusing guidelines based on statistical studies and not based on real

science. thank you very much. thanks. back to this health care vote tomorrow. here with me now is moderator of "meet the press" david gregory and ron brownstein, political director for atlantic media. this is a political firestorm and no way to separate these kinds of recommendations. with the whole health care debate and as bob just pointed out, it will become a new standard for insurers and for decisions, policymakers in washington if people say, well, you're not saving that many lives, therefore, there's less reason to reimburse. >> the issue is, what is going to control the day. if the obama administration's goal is to control health care costs and unnecessary health care spending and individuals, families and women who face these choices may want zero percent of anything going wrong and may want to have or, you know, screenings in their 40s as they have been doing, but it is an issue for the administration that wants to look at, are they getting the most out of health

care spending to look at different guidelines and different recommendations. so, this is something that the obama administration has to sort of reconcile. the fact that they immediately ran the other way when they charged these folks to come up with this panel discussion. they're going to be boards on these health care bills that examine, you know, the health care spending and whether this is the best approach ultimately towards cutting costs. >> a lot of ambivaliance already because in the various provisions that would create institutions to do what is known as comparative effectiveness research, generally the approach has been to really limit the extent to which that research can be used to drive coverage decisions eether for the government through medicare or through the private sector through private insurance companies. the kind of political uneasiness that david was talking about is already reflected in that when everybody talks about bending the curve over the long term, the goal is to move away from

health care system and based on how much volume they provide to how much value they provide but when you get down to where the rubber meets the road, one person's excessive volume is the test i need to have more peace of mind about myself or my relative. this is indicative of a hard issue but already grappling with it and retreated in some ways already in the approach to health care reform. >> you have debbie wasserman shultz who said that she had just gotten a clean mammogram and then found her lump, which was cancer. she's in her 40s. she found it on self-examination. gail collins, writing in "new york times" and coming out with their own examples of what they experienced with both positives and negatives in results. women are affected by this in so many profound ways and nobody is very confident about the science because we saw what the recommendations were in the '80s and the '90s and, you know, now in the turn of the century. david, how do we know what we're

being told now is correct. >> you don't which is why the government turned the other way -- >> ran the other way. >> they said we would still provide any government health care plan and like bob said, these things aren't going to go anywhere but you still have a president who wants to bend the cost curve. how do you do that? how do you do that when what your citing is not scientific. 20 people with anecdotal evidence. should that be the basis of policy and recommendations for women across the country? i don't know that it should be. we know people, okay, fine, let's not have it affect me because we want the best care possible. reconcile in these two things that are very difficult. i'm not sure it is possible and it has not been demonstrated by this administration so far. >> or really by anyone. that is the challenge. in the long run, if we are going to control the growth and health care costs, that is the prerequisite even if you expand coverage to 95% of the country,

if you can't slow the growth, it becomes unsustainable or for that matter the level of individual contribution required as well as the impact on business. so, controlling costs is a prerequisite to expanding coverage, but controlling the volume of care that is provided really as in finding ways to do this more efficiently and remove the incentives for people to provide unnecessary care has to be part of that over time. but that shows how these distractions much more difficult when they meet the actual specific expectation of patients which remains to get what they need when they feel they need it without worrying about the overall cost of the health care system. >> sprang into action and accused the administration and this panel of trying to ration. do they have a problem here in opposing the public option, opposing the broader expansion of health insurance to people at the same time as they're arguing

that what the democrats are now trying to do is ration. it seems to me they can't have it both ways. >> i was going to say, the irony here is that, really, when you think about the long-term process of trying to control costs and the republican and democratic vision goes towards very different stress points in the system. they want to change for providers and make it less economically attractive if a provider is to order more and more care. change the incentive for patients and consumers and their basic vision of health care reform is if more of the day-to-day health care is shifted to the individual, they will become a more sensitive consumer and won't use as much health care. so, in fact, the republican vision, you know, with health savings accounts and big, high deductible plans and employer-provided care is all designed to make people less likely to go and think twice before spending that health care dollar and, in many ways, an economic rationing from the other end. their vision of how to control costs. strange to have that argument

coming from the other side. >> david, stay a moment, we'll talk more about politics and "meet the press." as republicans are eyeing a comeback in next year's midterm elections, what role will the star players play? you're watching "andrea mitchell reports" only on msnbc. ( sneeze )

transform drinks you want, into cold medicine you need. introducing fast crystal packs. a new way from alka-seltzer plus to... get cold and flu relief in a taste-free, fizz-free powder. alka-seltzer plus. duracell batteries. and if you think all batteries are the same, consider this: these batteries are going... to the mattel children's hospital, u.c.l.a . because here they use the most... technologically advanced equipment for the healing... and the play. and to power all those toys the people at duracell... packed up a truckload of batteries. because nothing's better than powering a smile. duracell. trusted everywhere.

republican governors from across the country met in austin, texas, this week. their annual conference. party members are padding themselves on the back and at least they picked up two new governors new jersey and virginia calling it the start of the republican party's comeback. the governors say that americans are fed up with washington's overspending and taxes and attendies are feeling pretty confident about republican prospects in next year's

midterms. but, of course, it looks like the republican governors are losing one high-profile 2010 candidate. republican heavyweight rudy giuliani appears to be leaning towards a run for the u.s. senate if he runs for another office. a lot of new york governors not for the new york governor's race but america's mayor might just have political muscle needed to try to get into hillary clinton's old seat and flip that from blue to red. here now is david gregory, moderator of "meet the press" and mark whittaker. first of all, rudy out. doesn't seem like he wants to take on andrew quoemo who is ahead in that democratic race, but the numbers would show, david, that kirsten gillibrand and the numbers show 54 to 40% rudy would be her head-to-head. >> a real problem for the

democrat physical he does try to challenge her in the senate and no question that she appears more vulnerable at this point if he wants to get back into politics. >> but, mark whittaker, when we're talking about the republicans. got to play you a little bit of what hayly barber, the head of the republican governors had to say when asked if sarah palin. i know you had him on "meet the press" and last night after the rollout of the book and the whole book tour, chris matthews on "hardball" asked him whether sarah palin is qualified to be president. let's watch. >> does she qualify to be president? >> well, constitutionally she sure is. >> the latest "washington post"/abc poll say 60% of the people say she's not qualified to be president. are you with the 60 or 38 who say she is? >> well, i've been in the minority a lot in my life. i don't know anything that disqualifies her from being president. >> is governor palin qualified

to be president? i won't ask it again. this is the last time. >> and the last time i answer will be this. i don't know of anything that disqualifies her from being president. >> so, the best that hayly barber would give her is that she's constitutionally qualified. born in the united states and old enough to be president. but, mark whittaker you wrote online on msnbc.com about the palin phenomenon. the widespread suggestion that palin simply isn't qualified enough to to be considered a viable presidential candidate is ridiculous. for male politicians it's always been a rule of thumb in politics and the media that once you were on a presidential ticket, you were automatically elevated on to the short list of contenders for future races. why wouldn't she be qualified in the candidate pool for the next time? >> she has every right to run if that's what she is going to do and i think based on history, every time a vice president runs, even if the ticket is

unsuccessful, generally they get put on the short list of people, candidates for future races. but it is a very interesting question. we really had two stories this week. one was the palin phenomenon, which you were out in michigan covering which really sort of is about this disaffective hard, conservative base even some people who are off the political grid who are her base. meanwhile, you have the republican governors meeting in texas saying, look, the back to power back for us in 2010 and 37 governor races and then in 2012 is not by talking about the hot button social issues but focusing on kitchen table, bread and butter economic issues. >> i think there is an intersection here, david. you interviewed tim geithner recently and interviewed all these politicians and the anger and, you know, whether it's rational or not seen at that house hearing. here's a populous fervor out there i saw in the big box

stores where she was selling the book. in michigan, indiana, people are so angry about the economy and they see something in her that can fix all these problems. >> on both the left and the right you have this angry populism that is fueling to tim geithner or the economic policies of the administration. the qualification question with her is real because everything we know objectively about the choice was not about her being the best person to be vice president and within reach of being the president. there were other reasons. there were political reasons energizing the base. she accomplished all that. tremendous approval in that narrow band, around 31%. whether it's barber or newt gingrich or other republicans do not necessarily believe she is the most qualified. yes, is she on that short list and in the game and energize? she can do all those things. she's not necessarily qualified in the view of those folks and she represents a brand of

conservativism that hayly barber and the conservatives want to run away from. >> he could be a real candidate himself. let me ask you about another female former politician, former quotation marks diplomat. the "vogue" magazine story this month entitled "her brilliant career." with annie leave vits picture with former rivals there in the white house. beautifully photographed. you could not ask for more. this story describes hillary clinton as radiant and her coming out of the water swimming in cape verde in the africa trip and she's coming out by herself. she's prettier in person says the writer. this is the most glowing review of her conduct of secretary of state with all the praise she earned, this is probably as good as you get and as beautifully

photographed. david and mark, what is that all about in terms of political future of hillary clinton? >> hillary clinton is someone who is used to being in the spotlight and still surouned by loyal and capable aides who make it their business to keep her in the spotlight and every time you have one of those stories it raises questions about is she restless and is this job big enough and what is her relationship with the president? i think we saw this week in her accompanying the president to asia and then flying by herself to afghanistan to be there at the inauguration of president karzai the benefit that the president gets from having her in the cabinet. it's a political benefit because there isn't, there isn't all this speculation about a rivalry and so forth. but, it's also a policy benefit because she has star power, she can go to afghanistan, karzai can say, okay, if the president can't be here, that's good enough and all indications are that she has a personal

relationship with him that is going to be very effective if we're going to get some real reform in that government in pushing karzai in that direction. >> good cop, bad cop. she plays good cop and, david gregory, on "meet the press" you have a star studded panel coming out of this crucial senate vote on saturday. >> that's right. right on top of the news on health care with senators durbin and lieberman and hutchison and feinstein to talk about the 9/11 trials and afghanistan and all the issues the president steps back into now that he's back from asia. >> and nancy brinker and dr. nancy snider 00. all bases covered. if it's sunday -- >> it's meet the press. thank you. up next, finding an end game in afghanistan. chairman of the armed services committee carl levin.

somewhere in america, there's a home by the sea powered by the wind on the plains. there's a hospital where technology has a healing touch. there's a factory giving old industries new life. and there's a train that got a whole city moving again. somewhere in america, the toughest questions are answered every day. because somewhere in america, 69,000 people spend every day answering them. siemens. answers.

your walgreens pharmacist also dispenses wisdom... to help you make the right health care decisions. like understanding medicare part d. we'll walk you through a free plan comparison report... to guide you to the most cost-effective... and comprehensive plan, whether you're new to medicare part d... or you've been covered for a while. so stop in and stay well. cheese! walgreens. there's a way to stay well. ( sneezing ) i didn't take zicam cold remedy... but i did. zicam reduces the duration of a cold. ( sneezing ) no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no... can you do it by 3:00 ? yes, i can. how about 2:00 ? hmm... ( sneezing ) ( moaning ) get over your cold faster. now try new throat-soothing liqui-loz and great-tasting zavors.

people who can claim as long or storeied career in journalism as next guest. former headter of "sunday times" and "times of london" as well and president of random house where he published the autobiography of barack obama. good call. evans now tells his own story in "my paper chase" and a great read it is. it's lovely to see you. thank you very much for joining us. let's talk about your book about the stories, the story that you uncovered. the kind of investigative journalism that you did, which is becoming more and more rare raven the frailty of the newspaper industry or am i being too pest mystic about that?

>> newspapers can survive with new satellite printing technology among other things. ask you a newspaper delivered to your home. you're absolutely right, though. investigative journalism or even straight reporting at the kind that we did in london or the kind that's done here from time to time, think of watergate and pentagon papers saw it. here's what we're going to lose if investigative journalism disappears. imagine what it would have been like if investigative reporting had warned us of the dangers of iraq before we went in? imagine if investigative reporting had alerted us to what was happening in the financial meltden, you know, alerting the elite, alerting the massive people. we would have had a different situation today. now, if i'd been in the media, would i have been smart enough to detect those trends? maybe not. somebody, a good investigative journalist could have uncovered both of those in one element or another and brought them to the

people. >> i mean, one of the things you write about in your book in "the paper chase" is the question is not whether internet journalism will be dominant but maintain the quality of the best print journalism. in the end, it's not the delivery system that counts, it is what it delivepersp wonderful journalism available on the internet and we all know that in all kinds of forms. the level of the quality, the consistency and the ability to fact check and the ability to know what you're getting. >> that's very true. i mean, i happen to be married of the editor of "the daily beast" and i will not undermine my home happiness. the web is not significantly financed in the journalistic area to do what "the sunday times" and "u.s. news and world report" when i came to america. now, it doesn't mean that investigative journalism is necessarily very expensive. when i was editor of the british

paper in the north of england, we ran a campaign to get cervical cancer tests instituted for all women in the early 1960s, but the government wouldn't do it and we finally succeeded. it need not be expensive, but it can be. it would be a disastfer we don't find a way to finance the web, if at the same time, we're closing newspapers. i think the two can co-exist together, but we're not there yet. we're in a period of transition. but i think we're going next to a golden age of journalism because the retrieval of information on the web is incredible. now, information is not the same as creating understanding. >> that's the next step. well, we can start with "the daily beast" but first start with my paper chase. sir herald evans. great to see you. thanks so much. the last thing we would do is get between you and tina on the value of internet journalism. thank you very much. >> thank you, andrea. and coming up, moderate democrats on edge over health

care this weekend. what would senate holdout mary landrieu and blanche lincoln gain by voting against their own party? the very latest from the senate, next. threatens our national security. wendy r. sherman: it's crucial that america become energy independent. jackie rodgers, jr: i saw firsthand how america's dependence on foreign oil threatens our national security. terron sims, ii: stop sending our dollars overseas to be used against us. jonathan powers: america must reestablish itself as a country that leads by example. general wesley clark: we need to repower and there's no better time to do it then right now. announcer: add your voice at repoweramerica.org/wall. i just want fewer pills and relief that lasts all day. take 2 extra strength tylenol every 4 to 6 hours?!? taking 8 pills a day... and if i take it for 10 days -- that's 80 pills. just 2 aleve can last all day. perfect.

choose aleve and you can be taking four times... fewer pills than extra strength tylenol. just 2 aleve have the strength to relieve arthritis pain all day.

this is onstar reporting a stolen blue chevy tahoe, south on i-75, near exit 5. we're on it. onstar, we may have that tahoe. ok, i'll flash the lights. we got it. it's in the clear. i'm sending a signal to cut the power.

we got him. mr. ross, the police have recovered your tahoe. from the start of the health care debate, success for democrats is relied on key moderates. tlooes centrist democrats that we have been watching senator ben nelson of nebraska who today he said he is voting to get the bill on the house but not necessarily for passage and mary landrieu of louisiana and senator blanche lincoln who senator dick durbin told harry reid how she will vote, but senator durbin didn't disclose exactly what. luke russert is live on capitol hill right now. luke, they have different motivations. it's really blanche lincoln who is really the most vulnerable given that she's up for re-election and her polling isn't that great in arkansas. >> she is, andrea. quite interesting.

if you look at these three centrist democrats that have been holding this up. ben nelson is not up for re-election until 2012. mary landrieu is not up until 2014 and blanch linkson the one most at risk and liberals said if she votes against this bill going to the floor, they will run a primary challenger against her that will not be very good for her campaign coughers. an interesting story, andrea, about mary landrieu. we were looking that bill today and there is a $100 million little federal subsidy for states that, $100 million medical subsidy for states that have experienced a natural disaster in the past seven years. why is that interesting? mary landrieu is from louisiana, which had hurricane katrina, of course, in 2005. this could be maybe just a little bit of an early christmas gift for senator landrieu to come onboard and the leadership will never say that. they will say it has always been part of the bill. >> luke, you have been watching

the vote counting up there and harry reid is going to the floor and most people think he is a good vote counter with ben nelson indicating let it get to the floor and they'll let this up for debate. >> that's what all signs are pointing to right now. the interesting thing we can take away from this is the point that ken strickland made. harry reid, no matter what happens, he is showing to the liberal base that he's done everything in his power to get a bill with a public option to the floor, at least up for debate that satisfies the liberals and the moveon.org crowd and will show him as to be the standard-bearer of the liberal cause, andrea. >> luke russert, you're in the right place with the best story in place. for more, let's bring in democratic senator debbie on the hill. i know you will have a busy weekend up there. let me ask you what you want to see in this bill. what changes do you want to see?

let's say that you get the 60 votes and it gets to the floor and you finally get past all the other procedural hurdles. what changes do you want to see in the harry reid proposal to improve it from your standpoint? >> well, first of all, i think senator reid has really done an amazing job and i want to start by saying we wouldn't have this vote if our republican colleagues felt it was important to debate health care. i think they think it's okay that insurance companies right now ration care and control the whole system. we don't. what i'm looking for on the floor is to continue to work on affordability. senator reid has done a terrific job. we have been moving forward, the tax credits in the bill for small businesses, for families that don't have insurance now having greatly improved. i'd like to see a little bit more of that, if we can. and we just want to make sure that at the end of the day for folks that don't have insurance now they can find affordable insurance.

>> orrin hatch and others have talked about adding a stupak-type amendment further restricting abortions. do you think you can fight that back or is that going to be a really crucial test for this bill once it gets to the floor? >> i believe we have the votes to keep what's in the bill now. and to defeat the hatch amendment. what's in the bill now is established 30 years of law which says no federal funding for abortions. and i believe we have the votes to keep the language. >> and let me ask you about all the confusing guidelines and new and old information on women's screenings. not the cervical cancer screening so much because that seems to be rooted in what is best for young women and their future child bearing years, but let's talk about the mammogram issue and self-examination issue for women in their 40s. the senate to have some oversight into how this panel operates in the future and

whether or not women are getting the best advice. >> well, first of all, i really believe that this is an example of how things are supposed to work and how we want them to work in the legislation, which is, you can receive recommendations but the secretary of health and human services doesn't have to act on those. in fact, in our bill, we say you can't use those kinds of recommendations for coverage decisions. and we already are seeing many of us expressing concerns about those recommendations and asking questions and having oversight. so, the big issue is whether or not we want our doctors to have the very latest medical information to be able to share with us and i can't imagine that any mom or dad wouldn't want the very latest information in caring for their children or for themselves. i just recently had a conversation with my own doctor about a medicine and some changes and information they found about it and different ways of thinking from when it

was first released on the marketplace. i certainly want to be able to continue to have that and that's certainly not rationing. that's making sure we have the best medical care and doctors have the best information. >> debbie, thank you, senator. thanks very much. and up next, senator carl levin, chairman of the senate armd services committee. what he has to say about the president's strategy on afghanistan. that's next. but pressure... and congestion. introducing new sudafed pe® triple action™. for more complete relief from the sinus triple threat. new sudafed pe® triple action™. more complete relief. ( tires screeching ) ♪ people say i'm forgetful. ( horn honking ) maybe that's why we go to so many memorable places. love the road you're on.

the all-new subaru outback. consider this: these duracell batteries were given... to the mattel children's hospital, u.c.l.a. because when it comes to kids and healing... you're not just powering a toy. you're powering a smile. duracell. trusted everywhere. caused by a completely blocked artery, another heart attack could be lurking, waiting to strike. a heart attack caused by a clot,

one that could be fatal. plavix, taken with other heart medicines goes beyond what other heart medicines do alone to provide greater protection against heart attack or stroke and even death by helping to keep blood platelets from sticking together and forming clots. ask your doctor about plavix, protection that helps save lives. (female announcer) if you have stomach ulcer or other condition that causes bleeding, you should not use plavix. taking plavix alone or with some other medicines including aspirin, tell your doctor before planning surgery or taking aspirin or other medicines with plavix, especially if you've had a stroke. some medicines that are used to treat heartburn may affect how plavix works, so tell your doctor if you are taking other medicines. if fever, unexplained weakness or confusion develops, tell your doctor promptly. a rare but potentially life-threatening condition reported sometimes less than two weeks after starting plavix. other rare but serious side effects may occur. (male announcer) if you take plavix with other heart medicines continuing to do so will help increase protection against

a future heart attack or stroke. feeling better doesn't mean not at risk. stay with plavix. a day on the days that you have arthritis pain, you could end up taking 4 times the number... of pills compared to aleve. choose aleve and you could start taking fewer pills. just 2 aleve have the strength... to relieve arthris pain all day. welcome back. white house officials are telling us now not to expect any announcement from the president on afghanistan until after thanksgiving. joining us now, general barry mccaffrey just back from afghanistan. thank you so much, general. you've take an look at it, i know that earlier you were persuaded by general mcchrystal that we needed mcchrystal heavy or 40,000 or more troops to avoid failure. do you think now that they can come up with a better constellation of deployment to train afghan forces to try to bring more nato troops in and to

try to get that exit strategy, the glide path out that the president seems to be looking for? >> well, andrea, of course, that is going to be the question. the taliban are now operating in 200 and 300-man units and they're funded by drug money as well as saudi arabian money and the good news is mcchrystal sorted out the command and control and looks like nato and the u.s. forces are now aligned and we put some very high-profile people in u.s. embassy. five diplomats and usaid is in there in force, thank god. that's all good. the question is, can we sustain a two or three-year fighting campaign and a decade of nation building? can we tell the american people that and tell them to support t it? >> and contributing to this, of course, is the very controversial carl eikenberry memo.

i can say this, you don't have to say this. really anger ereered his former military colleagues late in the deliberations to say this isn't going to work. >> well, i think it was, it produced a real shockwave inside the armd forces. now, having said that, andrea, i read the cable going over there. it was a very logical course of action that should have been considered as strategic option. downsize the footprint, go a different route. sort of late in the game to be putting that on the table. so, i think that was a concern, but well written and well crafted and good thinking. >> just briefly, we're going to continue talking about afghanistan and one question to you about cuba because you testified, get off the plane from afghanistan and testified on the house side on cuba and the trade embargo a big debate going on and some concerns, pro and con, always controversial. you testified, based on your former experience, you were coordinating the drug war for the clinton administration and working with the cubans, you're

in favor of lifting the travel ban. >> no question. and there were some sparks yesterday. there were some real controversy in my view, it is senseless to continue a policy that we've essentially been isolating cuba since 1961, 11 million people. castro is going to pass on to his marxist reward here and we want to know who is going to run this government and engage them. >> continuing on all this, thank you very much. get some rest, you have been traveling too much. thanks for coming in. senator carl levin chairman of the armed services committee joins us now. senator, we are expecting after thanksgiving to hear the recommendations from the president, but it's become a cliche to say there are no good choices here. how do you have an exit strategy and train the afghan forces and get nato to step up to the plate. what do you see as the best outcome as the president reaches conclusions?

>> i see nato stepping up to the plate. i think it's a very logical way to proceed. it is essential that this be an international effort, a nato effort, not just an american effort and we have some nato meetings coming up in early december, which i think provide a real opportunity. we have recently german defense minister here in town and we had the german chancellor here in town and i'm sure those discussions have taken place and, in fact, commitments for some additional support are there. we have a natoize this effort. those two things. >> but are you persuaded you've spent a lot of time there and in studying the afghan forces, they have had terrible reviews in terms of their ability to bring people up to speed. do you believe that we can actually train them to take over for themselves and what kind of time frame? >> well, it's our assessment that most of the afghan units can right now either operate iny or with our support.

i've talked to our commanders, i have talked to our troops and they think highly of the afghan army, less of the afghan police force, but they believe the army is loyal. number two, they are fighters. they know how to fight and have been fighting for a long time. the afghans against the soviets recently, there's some real confidence in the afghan troops after they are trained and we ought to be able to train them a lot faster. i think it is very slow, particularly in the past couple months. we need to provide much more equipment to the afghan army, much faster. there needs to be a surge to the afghans and a surge of trainers to the afghans. we need more trainers. i think nato is willing to step up more in the way of training area and i rely on prime minister brown when i say that. >> what kind of surge, what kind of troop numbers to do you see coming out of the president's decision? >> i'm not able to predict troop

numbers because -- for a lot of reasons. i think there are so many competing goals here. the most important thing that the president could do, i think, would be to have a part of a comprehensive strategy, a nato/afghan initiative, which is comprehensive where troops are not the big issue, but other things, including trainers, training facilities, equipment, a policy and a plan for reintegrating the local taliban fighters. a plan which the afghan government would have to accept to decorrupt the afghan government. a much better delivery of services for the afghan people. there are a lot of ways you can show support and show commitment to success in of michigan afghanistan besides having a larger combat footprint. >> carl levin, from capitol hill, thank you very much. an interesting couple of weeks

ahead of us for afghanistan. thank you, senator. what political story will be making headlines in the next 24 hours? that's next on "andrea mitchell reports." boss: y'know, geico opened its doors back in 1936 and now we're insuring over 18 million drivers. gecko: quite impressive, yeah. boss: come a long way, that's for sure. and so have you since you started working here way back when.

gecko: ah, i still have nightmares. anncr: geico. 15 minutes could save you 15% or more on car insurance.

so what political story will be making headlines in the next 24 hours? jonathan caphart is and editorial writer for "the washington post." it will be a busy week on the capitol hill. >> absolutely. we'll be talking about whether senate majority leader harry reid can get the 60 votes he's been trying to get, to get his $840 billion health care bill over the procedural hurdle and onto the floor for debate. then the thing that will be interesting to see is what things were put in the bill to squeeze some of those last-minute votes he needs to get to the magic number of 60. as luke russert reported a few minutes ago, there's a $100 million golden nugget there for senator landrow of louisiana. there might be other things in

there once we get over the hurdle tomorrow night. >> you never know what you can find when you spend all weekend reading senate legislation. >> all 2,000 pages, yeah. >> happy reading, jonathan. thank you for much and have a great weekend. i'm andrea mitchell in washington. up next, "the new york times" edition only on msnbc, the place for politics.

this hour president obama back from his trip to china with a full agenda ahead. a key senate vote on health care tomorrow and a decision on more troops to afghanistan looming. sarah palin unleashed and on the road as there's a kickoff to the run for the white house. and politics and medicine collide in what's become a firestorm of controversy over new guidelines for mammographies. plus this -- these years with